This is a great ruling for cable giants and a bad ruling for consumers. For the opinion, click here.
In 2002, the Cyberlaw Clinic wrote an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon in Brand X Internet Services, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission. The matter is now before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Clinic continues to assist amicus ACLU as well as the AARP. This landmark case will review the FCC's determination that cable Internet access is an "information service" rather than a telecommunications service.
Dial-up Internet access is a thriving, competive market providing lots of choice for consumers because telecommunications subject to common carriage requirements-- the phone company cannot have a monopoly on dial-up service. The ACLU brief argued that cable Internet access is also a telecommunications service and should be regulated the same way dial-up is. If the FCC allows cable Internet service providers exclusive use of the wires, as more and more consumers move to broadband, a few cable ISPs will control the market.
These ISPs have business reasons and perhaps ideological reasons to delay, monitor, or censor customers' Internet traffic, and will do so if there is no competition. Open access to cable Internet service so a consumer has a choice of cable ISPs will address this concern and preserve the benefits of the Internet's end-to-end, content-neutral architecture. The FCC should have considered the First Amendment interests in making its decision. There are no technical barriers to requiring cable companies to provide access to the cable system to competitors.
This is a great ruling for cable giants and a bad ruling for consumers. For the opinion, click here.
Earthlink brief
Petitioner States and Consumer Groups
My home state of New Jersey's Brief
The Cyberlaw Clinic also assisted the AARP in writing an amicus brief in
Brand-X Internet Services v. FCC. The brief argued that by categorizing
cable broadband as a telecommunications service, the Court would force the
FCC to consider consumer concerns and preserve customer choice in the ISP
market. Such concerns include the affordable pricing, superior customer
service, diversity of options, and rapid technological innovation that have
characterized the early growth of the Internet. It argued that if cable
broadband continues to be classified as an information service, these
consumer benefits will continue to erode as cable companies use their
The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by members of the Cyberlaw Clinic, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court supporting open access to cable Internet lines. The case challenges an FCC determination that cable Internet service is not a "telecommunications service" presumptively subject to the sort of common carrier regulations historically applied to telephone service. The brief lays out the ways in which cable companies can control their customers' Internet experience and prevent them from switching to a viable alternative broadband provider, and argues that without meaningful consumer choice, monopoly providers of cable lines will be able to interfere with the free speech and privacy of Internet users.
The Media Access Project has additional resources on this issue available at their web site.
Download the ACLU Brief ACLU Amicus Brief in Brand X Internet Services vs. FCC.
On October 31st, 2002, the Center for Internet & Society
filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon in Brand X Internet Services,
et al. v. Federal Communications Commission.
The ACLU brief urges the Court to reverse the FCC’s decision classifying cable modem service as an interstate information service. Director Jennifer Granick, Fellow Elizabeth Rader and students Jennifer Elliott and Kalpana Srinivasan worked on the brief.